What did AA actually see when he “came upon this extraordinary scene”?

[Heroique]

Yesterday, while browsing AA’s The Negative, I re-visited his ever-fascinating account of taking the “Moonrise” photo – from chapter 6, “Natural Light Photography” – and his very first sentence struck me in an odd way like never before.

“I came across this extraordinary scene when returning to Sante Fe from an excursion from the Chama Valley,” he says, before describing his drama-filled moments of setting- up and taking the shot.

AA illustrates his account, as most here know, w/ a final print – only a final print – and nowhere in his account, except rather indirectly, does he suggest how much he manipulated the “reality” of the New Mexican scene to achieve, so movingly, his pre-visualized aim, as seen in the book.

However, if you inspect the two photos below, his manipulation was more than you might think. Much more. (Forum member Cesar Barreto shared this fascinating comparison in a related thread.)

The top photo shows “Moonrise” as a finished print; the bottom one shows “the only straight [contact] print.”
— Top photo’s caption: “Ansel Adams, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941.
— Bottom photo’s caption: “[Title repeated] To better understand the interpretive challenges of creative photography, the only straight print of Moonrise is on view at the Alinder Gallery.”

----------
:) Which brings me to my question for you – When AA claimed to have “come across this extraordinary scene,” exactly which scene was he referring to? Did he mean the top photo (the only one that appears in The Negative), or the bottom photo? The final print’s scene (in his mind), or the scene of “reality”?

Either way, do you think his “claim” has the potential to mislead, or be misread?

[Kirk Gittings]

IMO that statement and that image by him is the epitome of the concept of Pre-Visualization (a concept I know some disagree with-I don't-I do it every time I make an exposure). When you are largely in control of your equipment, materials and processing you "see" a scene in terms of what you can do with it expressively-all the way through burning and dodging and toning. That doesn't mean that your original concept doesn't evolve past the initial exposure, but that the full possibilities of interpreting a scene via B&W run through your head and you make appropriate choices of filters, DoF etc.

[clay harmon]

Neither print is reality. The scene was in color, and these are black and white photographs. What made Ansel great was his ability to use his knowledge of how his materials (camera, film and paper) can be used to transform a scene into something profound. Probably several people drove by him as he was hurriedly setting up his camera who looked at the scene, shrugged, and thought 'meh' and drove on. His genius was his ability to recognize 'extraordinary' when he saw it. Most people don't.

[JoeV]

Seeing the moon rising above the little church in the village of Hernandez, near dusk, is pretty special, even with a "straight" print. The fact that he also previsualized what potential there was for this negative in the darkroom I'm sure added to the emphasis he made in his statement.

Keep in mind he was returning from a day in the Chama valley, so his eye was probably already well-atuned to the vistas of northern New Mexico.

~Joe

[Peter Mounier]

A full moon rises as the sun is setting. For the full moon to be that high in the sky, the sun must've down for about 1/2 hour or more. I think it was fairly dark at the time. He overexposed the neg to get good detail on the ground. That made the sky look light, as it does in the straight print. He then over developed the neg to increase the contrast on the ground, and especially to increase the values on the town, which lightened the sky even more. Then, in the darkroom, he burned the sky down to get it back to what it was when he saw it.

Just my guess.

Peter

[Kirk Gittings]

Peter,
Actually I think he underexposed the scene to maintain the detail in the moon, which is why he later chemically intensified the foreground to build up the thin foreground density which allowed for the later well known version of the print.

[darr]

Ansel was just being creative using the tools of the day and his technique--no different from today amongst creative artists. The tools may have changed or evolved, but the process is still the same.

[D. Bryant]

IMO that statement and that image by him is the epitome of the concept of Pre-Visualization (a concept I know some disagree with-I don't-I do it every time I make an exposure). When you are largely in control of your equipment, materials and processing you "see" a scene in terms of what you can do with it expressively-all the way through burning and dodging and toning. That doesn't mean that your original concept doesn't evolve past the initial exposure, but that the full possibilities of interpreting a scene via B&W run through your head and you make appropriate choices of filters, DoF etc.
What Kirk said.

About 3 years ago at the #2 Andrew Smith gallery in Santa Fe, several different versions of this print were displayed to illustrate how Ansel's interpretation changed over the years. His initial vision of the scene didn't change since once the exposure was made the space and objects in the scene were "frozen" on the sheet film.

I've driven up that same stretch of road quite a few times and I've yet to see anything close to the original scene; of course the landscape has been transformed quite a bit as well.

My wife and I had an opportunity to purchase a 16x20 "modern" version of this print about 30+ years ago for 2K, we passed that day and have regretted our decision ever since.

[Peter Mounier]

I was just guessing, having no knowledge of the steps he took. Continuing with speculation; I wonder if he shot the scene at dusk, to capture good foreground detail, as the moon was above the horizon, but invisible behind the clouds. Then later, when the moon was higher in the sky, he double exposed the neg, for the moon's details, possibly underexposing the moon to fall in line with the overdevelopment he had to do for the dusk exposure.

If you know better, I'll stop guessing.


Peter

[Mark Sawyer]

Re: previsualization, it wasn't until several years after the negative was made that Adams started darkening the sky in prints. That part of the equation should be safely filed as "post-visualization" As Adams himself noted in Examples, "The printed image has varied over the years; I have sought more intensity of light and richness of values as time goes on."


A full moon rises as the sun is setting. For the full moon to be that high in the sky, the sun must've down for about 1/2 hour or more. I think it was fairly dark at the time.

The moon isn't full, and Adams also wrote in Examples that the sun was still on the crosses of the graveyard when the exposure was made.

[jeroldharter]

I think everyone pre-visualizes a print whenever he exposes a negative - whether he realizes it or not.

But the post-visualization work in the darkroom is important too, hence the reference to different interpretations of the print over the years.

I think it is very educational to see a straight print of the scene, then a description of metering and development, and then a print map of the final print.

[Mark Sawyer]

But the post-visualization work in the darkroom is important too, hence the reference to different interpretations of the print over the years.

Absolutely. Adams was fond of comparing the negative to a musical score and the print to the performance. How dull it would be for a musician to play a piece the same way every time; no growth, no reconsideration or interpretation...

[Brian Ellis]

At his workshops John Sexton shows a straight print of the Moonlight photograph. And you're certainly right, there's a big difference between the straight print and the manipulated versions we're familiar with. But that doesn't mean the straight print is an accurate representation of the scene. For all we know the manipulated version is closer to what he actually saw (or visualized, take your pick) but couldn't capture on film.

[Bruce Watson]

...do you think his “claim” has the potential to mislead, or be misread?

First, it's not a claim; he's telling you what he experienced.

Second, how could it be misleading? Adams never claimed that he did anything like documentary work; he always maintained his prints were as close as he could get to his artistic vision. He stated on numerous occasions (apparently) that one could go to one of his scenes with one of his prints, hold it up, and directly compare his print to the actual scene and be amazed at how different they were. This guy was all about manipulating the print, and he was always very up front about it -- that he did it, how he did it, and why.

I don't see how any of this can be misleading in any way.

As to misreading, I'll grant you that American schools may not be the best, but I hardly think you can blame Adams for that. ;)

[Heroique]

Re: previsualization, it wasn’t until several years after the negative was made that Adams started darkening the sky in prints...

A fun photo of Ansel w/ his two moons, Mark!

And your important clarification makes one curious, indeed, if AA had any specific “pre-visualization” at shutter snap – or simply captured what he could, when he could, sensing the negative would contain a lot of potential for future expression.

[Heroique]

...how could it be misleading?

Only because he tells the reader “I came across this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

It’s delightfully ambiguous at best, potentially misleading at worst, and I’m sure he meant it to be neither. His wording, I think, adds even more to the print’s mysterious aura.

[Brian Ellis]

Only because he tells the reader “I came upon this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

It’s delightfully ambiguous at best, potentially misleading at worst, and I’m sure he meant it to be neither. His wording, I think, adds even more to the print’s mysterious aura.

Why do you assume that the straight print is an accurate representation of the scene and the version with which we're familiar isn't? Maybe all that manipulation is done to make the print look more like what he actually saw than the straight print did.

[Brian C. Miller]

Heroique, the elements and their lighting is extraordinary and rare, and happen every few decades. And then you have the weather to toss some chance into the game. Adams was passing by, looked over, saw the scene, jammed on his brakes, lept out, and hurridly set up the camera and was able to make one shot. He got lucky. Extraordinarily lucky.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Luck favors the prepared".

In my case, I think I'd have had a better than average chance of completely blowing that shot.

[johnmsanderson]

:) Which brings me to my question for you – When AA claimed to have “come across this extraordinary scene,” exactly which scene was he referring to? Did he mean the top photo (the only one that appears in The Negative), or the bottom photo? The final print’s scene (in his mind), or the scene of “reality”?

Either way, do you think his “claim” has the potential to mislead, or be misread?

The scene he was referring to was the one before his eyes, the inception of what later became his final print.

[Barry Kirsten]

Only because he tells the reader “I came across this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

It’s delightfully ambiguous at best, potentially misleading at worst, and I’m sure he meant it to be neither. His wording, I think, adds even more to the print’s mysterious aura.

I don't think it's ambiguous or potentially misleading. To Adams it was extraordinary, and he responded accordingly. Whatever he "saw" caused him to do something about it. Surely that's the point. I wonder how many of us, had we been there at the time, would have passed by without being challenged in that way.

Barry.

[Kirk Fry]

As my wife said, he "shopped it". Is it any different, just harder? If it is art it does not matter what it started out as, it is the final vision that matters. KFry

[Bruce Watson]

Only because he tells the reader “I came upon this extraordinary scene,” but shows only his intensely expressive print.

You think he was lying? That it was, in fact, not extraordinary? To whom? Who else was actually there at the time? I wasn't, neither were you. But Adams was, and clearly he thought it was extraordinary. We know this because he said so.

You seem determined to be "mislead" which is OK if that's what you want.

Me? After a cold and drab beginning, the day here is turning out to be extraordinary. I think I'll head out and see what I can find to photograph.

[Richard M. Coda]

He knew the potential of the image and when he clicked the shutter he already had a pretty good idea what he needed to do to to make it happen.

http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com/2010/01/inspirations-24-moonrise.html

[Stephane]

N+2

[Stephane]

and dont F$$$k up!

[Drew Wiley]

Technique ... practice .... intution... no doubt about all that. But it also takes a bit
of luck. What Ansel never tells you is how many shots slipped off the hook.

[Heroique]

So far I think there’s a degree of truth in what everyone has shared about what “extraordinary scene” must mean. Even a Spanish friar & modern meteorologist might embrace Ansel’s phrase (if not each other!) w/ equal passion, each in possession of a bit of the truth and beauty of such a richly felt image.

[Stephane]

Yea, he had his mistakes too, but for these two, he told the story of what happened in an interview.

He was driving with his son (maybe some one else?), and saw the moon rise. He had to be very quick, stopped the car and asked his son to help him set up.

Took only few minutes, but he had time to shoot 2, and knew the first shot was a keeper (if nothing happens before development).

He knew he had something, but there's always this element of surprise (aka: what went wrong with my neg, I was very careful).

So, N+2 and keep that neg safe.

[cowanw]

Not saying it's so with this print, But Mr Adams has been known to misremember details in some of his interviews. We all preremember what we think happened

[Marko]

I wonder what would everybody be saying if Ansel processed this image in Photoshop? Would it still be the "extraordinary talent for pre-visualisation" or would it become "blatant manipulation"?

Either way, why or why not?

[rdenney]

Took only few minutes, but he had time to shoot 2, and knew the first shot was a keeper (if nothing happens before development).

He did not have time for two. He tells in an interview that just as he turned the film holder over to make a second shot, the "light went off the crosses". And that, I think, provides insight into what he saw. He saw the light on those crosses, sparkling like jewels against the deep blue sky, made deep blue by the contrast of the wind clouds and the Moon. But the reflections on those crosses were dominant, and he had to print it the way he did to make them so in the print. He described the Moon as two or three days before full, which means it would be well up before sunset. The foreground vegetation was already in shadow, which is why 1.) the crosses were so dominant, and 2.) why he had to intensify that part of the negative with chromium intensifier to make it easier to print.

Rick "who probably would have driven on and then regretted being lazy" Denney

[j.e.simmons]

He also said in an interview that he could not find his exposure meter. He based his exposure on his knowledge of the moon's reflectance - IIRC, 250c/ft2.
juan

[Jerry Bodine]

I felt compelled to take the time to search Ansel’s AUTObiography for his own words on this image, and they should dispel/verify much of the foregoing thoughts and speculations. In an effort to avoid copyright infringement, I’m paraphrasing what I found:

It was a bright autumn afternoon in the Chama Valley and, after struggling with several tough subjects – one of which defied visualization - it seemed to be one of those unproductive days. Everyone agreed to just head back to Santa Fe. Driving south he saw a “fantastic” scene nearing Hernandez. Moon rising in the east, late afternoon sun brilliantly lighting up the white crosses in the church cemetery. There was very little time to get the camera set up, and once composed/focused he could not find his light meter. Sun about to disappear behind clouds, he suddenly remembered the moon’s luminance to be 250 c/sqft, which he placed on Zone VII. A deep yellow filter led to a 1-sec exposure at f/32. No accurate shadow reading in the foreground. Made one exposure, reversed the 8x10 holder for another attempt and the light was gone as the darkslide was pulled and a magical moment was lost forever. He received many letters about this picture and as a result made clear that it most certainly was not a double exposure. Initially printing the negative (exposed in 1941), he allowed some clouds in the upper sky to show, but he had visualized a very deep nearly cloudless sky. Not until the ‘70s did he achieve the print that matched his original visualization, which he still recalled vividly.

[Heroique]

...Initially printing the negative (exposed in 1941), he allowed some clouds in the upper sky to show, but he had visualized a very deep nearly cloudless sky. Not until the 70’s did he achieve the print that matched his original visualization, which he still recalled vividly.

Thanks for sharing your research, Jerry.

It’s interesting he recalls his visualization “vividly,” but doesn’t say whether he recalls the “reality” of his experience as strongly. If it were me, 30 years (and more) would blur the two – in stealthy, imperceptible steps – until they were one! This is why yesterday, I thought twice about “I came across this extraordinary scene…” – and how long ago he’s remembering, and what consequences the book’s single, expressive print might have on the average reader’s understanding.

A matter for psychologists to ponder, while we get the image to enjoy!

[sun of sand]

When I look at photographs I consider to be good I always try to pick out the element/s I
I believe
made the photographer want to take the photo

It could be anything

and I believe that most times there is one specific
thing in a scene
that attracts the person initially
who then checks out the environment of that object for pleasing compositions incorporating it

and I then try to pick out what made the photographer choose that particular composition
the order of the approach


in the darkroom that person continues the investigation into that scene

I don't believe for a second in "previsualization" as a seen final product
i need a red filter to do this and later on I'll tone in whatever and use this technique
lol

more
this has "good bones"
..what do I have to do now that I won't be able to do later

[Brian Ellis]

Technique ... practice .... intution... no doubt about all that. But it also takes a bit
of luck. What Ansel never tells you is how many shots slipped off the hook.

Actually his writings, and the writings by others concerning things he said, contain quite a few examples of mistakes he made of one kind or another. If you haven't read it already try "Ansel Adams - Letters - 1916 - 1984" (ISBN 0-8212-2682-7) edited by Mary Alinder and Andrea Stillman (with a wonderful forward by Wallace Stegner). In fact it's a little surprising, considering his generally meticulous approach to photography, just how often he did screw up.

As far as "Moonlight" is concerned, the only luck involved from what I've read was that he was there at the right time. But once he arrived he had some bad luck too - couldn't find his light meter and wasn't able to get a second photograph before the light changed.

[mandoman7]

Previsualization is something everyone does to a degree, and is hardly a magical technique. Everyone who attempts any kind of artistic project has an idea about how its going to look eventually. The variation might be in the extent to which one adheres to their original vision more than whether it exists or not.

The was a show at the de Young in SF some years ago that actually had 4 or 5 different moonrises printed at different stages of Ansel's career, and the differences were dramatic. In the first images the sky was 2 or 3 stops lighter in the print than in the latter prints. The darkened sky, in other words, was not part of his original visualization if the first 10 years of printing this image is any indication.

Many artists welcome the prospect of variations coming into play during the creation of a piece, giving serendipity and the subliminal a say in the process. The final print is a little like raising children where we might have an idea about how we want things to turn out, but big portions of the outcome are out of our hands.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I always wanted to know what he saw there as well. So I went there and spent quite a bit of time there.

Of course, it doesn't look now what it looked like then. Lots of homes have been built below the highway, and the trees have grown considerably.

I do agree with some of the others that his vision of the place changed over the years. In other words, what he saw when he made the exposure changed over time.

here is what it looks like now.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c87/22wrf/011.jpg

[Leigh]

I would guess his first glance was caught by the sun-bright crosses against a dark background.

Then he started analyzing the whole scene.

Just speculation.

- Leigh

[Heroique]

I would guess his first glance was caught by the sun-bright crosses against a dark background.

Then he started analyzing the whole scene.

Just speculation.

Now you’ve got me speculating... :rolleyes:

I don’t know how long it takes to get from Chama Valley to Hernandez, but as Ansel was making his way, he must have noticed the ascending moon “following along” for some portion of the journey. (It’s an open desert view, after all.) I can only suspect that as he drove, he kept watching the moon (or stayed aware of it), ever-alert for a scene that might look good underneath it – and, when passing Hernandez, he (or his best instincts) stopped the car, the moon “stopped” over the scene, he liked what he saw – especially his visualization – and he began his feverish set-up process.

And now that I’m on a speculative roll w/ this ... I’m curious if Ansel might have had an idea or two while approaching Hernandez – that is, before arriving there – though his accounts suggest it was a purely spontaneous moment.

[Alan Curtis]

If you came across this same light situation now in Hernandez it wouldn't be as obvious. The old highway that AA was on was very close to the cemetery, now highway 84 is some distance away. If you don't know what you are looking for you would miss it now. The highlighted crosses were right in front him with no obstructions.

[darr]

I always wanted to know what he saw there as well. So I went there and spent quite a bit of time there.

Of course, it doesn't look now what it looked like then. Lots of homes have been built below the highway, and the trees have grown considerably.

I do agree with some of the others that his vision of the place changed over the years. In other words, what he saw when he made the exposure changed over time.

here is what it looks like now.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c87/22wrf/011.jpg

Thanks for the view Kevin!

[Mark Sawyer]

He was on a photographic trip, driving through a wonderful landscape at the time of the day when the light was best. I'm sure his eyes were searching for such an opportunity. Actually, he's quite lucky he didn't pull over a mile earlier for a more mundane foreground for the moonrise.

[rdenney]

And now that I’m on a speculative roll w/ this ... I’m curious if Ansel might have had an idea or two while approaching Hernandez – that is, before arriving there – though his accounts suggest it was a purely spontaneous moment.

Nah. I doubt he would have predicted a cemetary with brightly lit gravestones in horizon-rimmed sunlight. He might have been looking for something, but I doubt he was looking for that. I suspect that if he could claim he saw it coming, he would. He was humble enough in the movies I've seen of him, but he did not seem to me a person given to false humility.

Those bright crosses would have not looked remarkable from all angles, I don't suspect.

Rick "who once ran a quarter mile, tripod and camera in hand, to grab an ephemeral image like that" Denney

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm sure Ansel wasn't pre-visualizing. I'll bet he was too busy dropping f-bombs (his buddy Cedric was busy holding his hands over Micheal's ears) trying to set up and find his light metre. Good thing AA new what foot candles the full moon is...

[Steve Smith]

Re: previsualization, it wasn't until several years after the negative was made that Adams started darkening the sky in prints. That part of the equation should be safely filed as "post-visualization"

What people are referring to as pre-visualisation is actually just visualisation. It is already in advance of doing something so the pre- is superfluous. If you read The Negative, The Camera and The Print, you will see that Adams only uses visualisation, not pre-visualisation.

This non-existent term has been wrongly attributed to Adams for many years.


Steve.

[Mark Sawyer]

This non-existent term has been wrongly attributed to Adams for many years.


Yep, it was Edward Weston who actually came up with the non-existant term.

[Brian Ellis]

Yep, it was Edward Weston who actually came up with the non-existant term.

I'm not aware that Weston came up with it though he might have, I haven't re-read everything by Edward Weston to search for the term. But where did you see that he did?

The first use of the term that I know of was by Adams in an early 1960s Polaroid publication. But it actually was Minor White who really gave impetus to it in his 1968 zone system manual. Or so I read in a Comment made by some guy named Steve Smith in a recent issue of The Online Photographer. : - ) For the complete discussion see
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/02/unlearning.html

[Merg Ross]

Yep, it was Edward Weston who actually came up with the non-existant term.

Weston preferred the term "prevision", as used in this statement accompanying his 1930 exhibition at the Delphic Studios, New York:

"This is the approach: one must prevision and feel, BEFORE EXPOSURE,the finished print---complete in all values, in every detail---when focussing upon the camera ground glass. Then the shutter's release fixes for all time this image, this conception, never to be changed by afterthought, by subsequent manipulation. The creative force is released coincident with the shutter's release. There is no substitute for amazement felt, significance realized, at the TIME of EXPOSURE."

Edward Weston, 1930

(from, Edward Weston, "On Photography", Peter Bunnell, 1983, Peregrine Smith Books)

[cowanw]

Weston preferred the term "prevision", as used in this statement accompanying his 1930 exhibition at the Delphic Studios, New York:

"This is the approach: one must prevision and feel, BEFORE EXPOSURE,the finished print---complete in all values, in every detail---when focussing upon the camera ground glass. Then the shutter's release fixes for all time this image, this conception, never to be changed by afterthought, by subsequent manipulation. The creative force is released coincident with the shutter's release. There is no substitute for amazement felt, significance realized, at the TIME of EXPOSURE."

Edward Weston, 1930

(from, Edward Weston, "On Photography", Peter Bunnell, 1983, Peregrine Smith Books)

He must have a lot of previsions of that darn toilet bowl!

[Brian C. Miller]

He must have a lot of previsions of that darn toilet bowl!

Every time he sat down! :D

[cowanw]

Every time he sat down! :D

I just sh!t myself laughing

[Jeffrey Sipress]

OP, I don't know what you are trying to get at. I, like many landscape photographers here (including AA), occasionally happen across 'extraordinary' scenes, and almost immediately begin the mental process of interpreting it and mechanically and chemically capturing it to give us the material we need to realize out interpretations. Our prints rarely look like the 'real' scene in front of us. What do you do?

"What people are referring to as pre-visualisation is actually just visualisation. It is already in advance of doing something so the pre- is superfluous. If you read The Negative, The Camera and The Print, you will see that Adams only uses visualisation, not pre-visualisation."

Thank you, Steve. I've gotten used to everyone using the wrong term. It's kinda like the term 'hot water heater'. If the water was already hot, you wouldn't need the appliance. It's a water heater. But my favorite is 'Free Gift"!

[KJ Smith]

RE: Moonrise


"Playboy:
Did you know at the time that you had taken a memorable photograph?

Adams:
I knew it was an important image. I visualized this wonderful image and I just hoped I had captured it. When I started to develop it, I began to worry. First I was going to give it a little less than normal minus development. But I figured that if I did, it wouldn't hold the shadows' contrast in the foreground. I gave it a water bath development. I had worried that I had seriously underexposed the negative. I nearly panicked until I found that I hadn't; I'd gotten it! The first print showed some scattered clouds in the sky that weren't very favorable to the over-all scene. They weakened the feeling. So I kept printing the sky darker until I had it, the image I had seen in my minds eye."

From the Playboy Interview, May 1993

[walter23]

Yeah, I agree, it's obvious that neither picture shows exactly what the scene looked like at the time, but I'm sure a lot of us can put ourselves there and imagine what the late dusk light on the town must have looked like, with the moon rising above those clouds. It obviously wouldn't look like the straight contact print.


A full moon rises as the sun is setting. For the full moon to be that high in the sky, the sun must've down for about 1/2 hour or more. I think it was fairly dark at the time. He overexposed the neg to get good detail on the ground. That made the sky look light, as it does in the straight print. He then over developed the neg to increase the contrast on the ground, and especially to increase the values on the town, which lightened the sky even more. Then, in the darkroom, he burned the sky down to get it back to what it was when he saw it.

Just my guess.

Peter

[rdenney]

...From the Playboy Interview, May 1993

Well, that would have been a neat trick, considering he died in 1984.

Rick "that would be 1983" Denney

[KJ Smith]

Well, that would have been a neat trick, considering he died in 1984.

Rick "that would be 1983" Denney


You are correct, my bad.

KJ "It's the first time I screwed up this week" Smith,

or KJ "I only got it for the articles" Smith

your choice.

[Robert Hughes]

Or did he "post-visualize" that interview?

[KJ Smith]

Or did he "post-visualize" that interview?

I couldnt remember that much detail 40 yrs later. Hell, I couldn't remember the magazine date 5 sec. later.


Like all great stories, I am sure it changed over time.

Makes very little difference.

Great Photographer, Great Photograph..... even if it was a grab shot.....:eek:

[Brian Ellis]

I couldnt remember that much detail 40 yrs later. Hell, I couldn't remember the magazine date 5 sec. later.


Like all great stories, I am sure it changed over time.

Makes very little difference.

Great Photographer, Great Photograph..... even if it was a grab shot.....:eek:

Considering that Adams couldn't remember exactly when he even made the photograph I'd question how much he really remembered about it. But like you say, who cares. What's he supposed to say when someone asked him if he realized it was a memorable scene - " No, I didn't think there was anything special about it. But I had a leftover sheet of film and figured I might as well use it up before I got home."

[Kirk Gittings]

My memory (I suspect like most photographers) is much stronger when it comes to images more so than dates, names, historical facts etc.

[Ben Syverson]

I have a question about AA...

He said many times that a photograph isn't "taken," it's "made," with the idea being that the finished print is a "performance" of the negative.

So what the hell verb did he use to convey the production of a negative? Did he "shoot" them? Obviously a negative is not "made" in the same way that he meant that a print is an artistic end product.

Just as obviously, this is coming from someone who has never read the AA holy scriptures. I'm sure this could be cleared up in 20 seconds with "The Negative."

[Marko]

I have a question about AA...

He said many times that a photograph isn't "taken," it's "made," with the idea being that the finished print is a "performance" of the negative.

So what the hell verb did he use to convey the production of a negative? Did he "shoot" them? Obviously a negative is not "made" in the same way that he meant that a print is an artistic end product.

Just as obviously, this is coming from someone who has never read the AA holy scriptures. I'm sure this could be cleared up in 20 seconds with "The Negative."

There are questions that you may wish you never asked, or at the very least those you wish you never got answered. :D

Here's from AA himself:



These people live again in print as intensely as when their images were captured on old dry plates of sixty years ago...

(from the Preface to Jacob A. Riis: Photographer & Citizen [1974])


And no, I don't own that book, I found the quote and the attribution in Susan Sontag's "On Photography", which in turn I found on the Web, courtesy of Google, in less time then it took to write this post.

Marko

[Brian Ellis]

My memory (I suspect like most photographers) is much stronger when it comes to images more so than dates, names, historical facts etc.

I understand and I agree, I could certainly remember facts about making photographs much more readily than I'd remember the date (of course I haven't made any "Moonrises" either). But IIRC (and I may not) for a long time Ansel wasn't even completely sure of the year.

I don't mean to be critical of Adams who I think made more contributions to photography in more different ways than any other single person in the history of photography. I just find it interesting to speculate about how much of the story surrounding the making of the photograph was based on actual recollection and how much was "after the fact" as the image became more and more popular.

[Mark Sampson]

It seems to me that the more times he had to tell the story, the more of a story it became. That's the nature of repeated storytelling. People want more details, especially as the price goes up. ...I wonder which side of the road he parked the Pontiac on?
In actuality, he saw something amazing, was able to make a negative, and afterward did what was necessary to make the print he wanted... his own definition of which changed over time, and which was certainly not fully articulated at the moment of exposure. As you might guess, I find his explanation of this photograph in the book "Examples" quite convincing.

[Heroique]

...I find his explanation of this photograph in the book “Examples” quite convincing.

Now I’m curious if AA knew – in advance of publication – that The Negative would include only a single (visualized) image of Moonrise to accompany his words, “I came across this extraordinary scene.” The lone illustration makes it possible for some readers (I have beginners in mind) to misconstrue those words. If I’d been the book’s editor, I may have thought twice about AA’s language, and run it by AA himself just to be sure that’s what he wanted to say. And it just might have been.

Does his explanation & accompanying photo in Examples work the same way?

[chris_4622]

I saw a 20x24 print of this over the weekend at Art Chicago. I had seen two other smaller prints at the Andrew Smith Gallery in Santa Fe. This particular example was beautiful.

[Stephen Willard]

I would like to weight in on this discussion. These two images of Hernandez came up in a discussion I had on this website a number of years ago. Moonrise is AA best selling image. It is also one of the few landscape images that AA made which contained a human footprint. Most of his landscapes were a record of the land in its wilderness state and absent of any human activity.

The magnitude of changes that AA exacted from this negative is concerning to me. The difference in the sky is around 7 to 8 stops from white to black. It is almost as if AA painted in a different sky with photoshop. This drastic change now moves most of the print values to the extreme ends of the print spectrum resulting in over saturated blacks and whites. It is also clear that he has resorted to some intensification process to further increase contrast. By increasing contrast and placing extreme print values adjacent to one another (snow-white clouds adjacent to jet-black sky), AA has fostered and overall sense of brilliance and has clearly intensified the visual drama of Moonrise. From my own personal experiences extreme print values, an illusion of brilliance, and strong visual drama are the basic ingredients of salability, and thus, one could easily conclude that Moonrise smacks of commercialism.

That said, I would like to make two points.

First, I believe being an artist and being commercial defines a “real” artist who must make a living selling his art. The “real” artist must pander to markets and commercialism in order to put food on the table. Hunger is a powerful force unto itself that can lead to profound discovery because it forces you to go places where you would not normally go. In his autobiography, AA talked about the ridicule he endured from those artists who “lived in the plastic towers of our universities” and who were absent from real life experiences, and thus, were not “real” artists. He proudly proclaimed that commercialism made him a better artist.

Second, sometimes an artist simply does not know how to make a final product that illustrates his initial vision. I personally can speak to that struggle. It can take me years to figure out how to produce a rendering in the darkroom that is true to the emotions that stirred within my heart on the day I took the photograph. Producing an expressive image that captures the experience of what I saw and FELT is not easy to do because of the restrictions traditional photography can impose on ones control over his craft. To illustrate this point, please note my initial rendering and the final rendering shown below (in that order from left to right respectively) of an image that is posted on my website. The initial rendering is still on my website and was done in 2007. This winter I finally figured out how to print it on the FOURTH year of many failed trials. At the time I took this photograph, the mountains were indeed dark, black, and intimidating, and there was safety in the warmth of the sunlight aspens. This state of being is articulated in the narrative I also posted on my website, and the final rending I just produced is consistent with my narrative that I wrote in 2007 and my initial vision I had on the day I took the photograph. The journey I endured to produce the final rendering was long, frustrating, and filled with many disappointments, but it was also deeply satisfying.

I suspect that AA struggled with Moonrise for many years before he got it right just like I have done, and I am sure that this is a struggle that many photographers go through from time to time. I also believe that there are influences of commercialism in Moonrise just like there is in my own work and that is not a bad thing, but rather, defines the power of the “real” artist.

[rdenney]

Adams talked about the advantages of black and white. He could dramatically change the values and still maintain an impression of realism. He stated that using color materials made such manipulations difficult, because such manipulations would make the image obviously unrealistic. It seems to me that those manipulations then become distractions (unless they are specifically the artistic point).

He made that description in an interview while standing on the Big Sur coastline. But he also described his process with both Moonrise and Half Dome, where each was manipulated strongly to capture his intent. In the case of Half Dome, the decision to use a red filter was made at the time, and in 1927 when the decision was made, Adams had not made the decision to pursue photography commercially. According to him in that 1980 interview, it was that photo that led him to realize that he had control over the artistic product, and that realization is what motivated him to consider photography as a livelihood.

At the time he drove past Hernandez in 1941, he looked out and saw the sun shining on those crosses, with the deep blue sky and brilliant Moon as a backdrop. We have all seen scenes where a sun close to the horizon provided dramatic lighting against a contrasting sky. I see the point were seeking drama for the sake of drama can be seen as pandering to a market, just the same as sliding the saturation slider to the right. The outcome can only be judged by the effect it has on people.

I think we have to take what he said at face value. It is plausible enough, and consistent with how he describes other photographic decisions. I'm in my 50's, but the flashes of insight I had in grad school are still crystal clear to me, and supported by documentation at the time. Those memories represent key highlights in our lives and don't really fade, even if we can't remember what year it was or what we were wearing that day. For me, the important intellectual insights of my life are easier to remember than physical external events, even those that others generally think are most important.

As to artists being real artists only if they make their living doing it, well, I hope I'm never asked to defend that thesis. I can think of too many contradicting examples and I don't think it can hold up to scrutiny. That does not mean, of course, that academic credentials by themselves qualify one as an artist. Some undeniable artists have courted commercial success, and some have not. We can't judge art or artists on the basis of commercial popularity; if we do, then the commercially successful dilettantes become legitimized as artists.

Rick "a real bad artist" Denney

[Stephen Willard]

As to artists being real artists only if they make their living doing it, well, I hope I'm never asked to defend that thesis. I can think of too many contradicting examples and I don't think it can hold up to scrutiny. That does not mean, of course, that academic credentials by themselves qualify one as an artist. Some undeniable artists have courted commercial success, and some have not. We can't judge art or artists on the basis of commercial popularity; if we do, then the commercially successful dilettantes become legitimized as artists.

Rick "a real bad artist" Denney

My notion of the "real" artist is simply a view that is mine alone. It does mean that you are a good or bad artist, but rather implies that you embrace the power of commercialism to help define your work. Being a "real" artist is different then being a commercial photographer because commercialism is not the only influence that is used to guide the development of your work. There can be many other influences as well including other artist works and of course the artists own personal experiences.

The beauty of commercialism or the production of salable images is that your audience becomes a bigger circle then just yourself. There is a big difference when one votes with his pocket book verses cheap commentary from the critics. Commercialism keeps you grounded in the esthetic values of the community that your work sells to. It is brutally honest in nature, and many artist shrink from that kind of exposure and challenge.

Yes, there are artist who do achieve fame and recognition through just the sheer number of venues that they exhibit such as university galleries or contemporary museums without ever selling any of their work until at some point there is a belief that they have name recognition. At that point what sells is not the work itself, but rather the name. Strip the name from the work and the art then becomes worthless.

What follows is my view of the journey of becoming a "real" artist.

A "real" artist will never bother to exhibit his work in a place that is not a serious commercial venue driven soley by sales. He will develop the skills to find a market that his work will sell to and then exhibit his work in real commercial venues that can reach his market. It is important to realize that the art and market must be compatible with one another for this to work. At first he may not even be accepted by such venues until his work improves enough such that he is accepted. Even then once his work is excepted nothing may sell until one day his work further improves enough so that a sale is realized. However, most often the initial sale is for to little money, and certainly not enough for him to put food on the table. So he continues to struggle to improve until one day his work begins to sell well at respectable prices. It makes no difference whether he signs the art or not. It just sells. The art now begins to resinate with the esthetic values of its market, and people vote readily for the art with their hard earned dollars.

The process of becoming a "real" artist is iterative in nature and can take years to perfect. It is all about a human struggle of discovery and improvement. It is my belief that when one becomes a "real" artist, I can assure you his work is profound and distinctive nature independent of its form and style.

Please note that I am making broad generalities, and there will always be many exceptions. However, it is my belief that there are two basic categories for photography. One is influenced by commercialism and the production of salable of art that I call “real” art, and in retrospect, a better name might be “real life” art. The other category is about the evolution of art in the absence of commercialism.

It is my personal belief that the later lacks “real” accountability and corrupts the very nature of the artist and his work. I also believe that the the power of “real” artist lies not in his art as most would think, but rather with the intimate dialogue he has developed with his patrons. This dialogue dose not exist for those who are not “real life” artist and the lack of such a dialogue can in itself question the relevancy of such art.

[KJ Smith]

In my mind, "a real artist" would not change his vision to sell a print.

That would be selling out.

Once you start making images with the intent to market them to specific venues, you have become a Craftsman.


Not that there is anything wrong with that....:)

[Vaughn]

The magnitude of changes that AA exacted from this negative is concerning to me...

He also changed the negative -- by selenium toning the bottom half.

Vaughn -- happy to be an artist, real or just in my own mind, does not matter.

[rdenney]

He also changed the negative -- by selenium toning the bottom half.

Was it selenium toner that he used or chromium intensifier?

According to him, he didn't do it to change his visualization, but rather to make it easier to print that visualization.

Rick "a minor curiosity" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

Was it selenium toner that he used or chromium intensifier?

According to him, he didn't do it to change his visualization, but rather to make it easier to print that visualization.

Rick "a minor curiosity" Denney

Kodak IN-5 Intensifier, to make it easier to print. Or so he says in "Examples."

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Brian. I was going on an old memory from back in the Ansel Adams Workshop days. Based on that faulty memory I once selenium toned half of a 4x10 negative to make it easier to print (as a carbon print) -- fortunately it worked great...and a little simplier than the IN-5.

Vaughn

[Robert Hughes]

In my mind, "a real artist" would not change his vision to sell a print. That would be selling out.
OTOH, suppose I took a photo of an old house, as part of my "abandoned ruins" series (we've all done some of those). But the gallery is having a retrospective on local Victorian architecture and wants my print as an example. Would I be selling out by showing that print in a different context than my original intent? Or is the resulting image bigger than my little vision?

[Lynn Jones]

Heroique, I've been a photographer since 1947, and was acquainted with Ansel from 1957/58 until his death. My company (Original Calumet) "sponsored" his first book on large format photography which is why some photographs with him have 4x5 Calumets shown. I always considered myself to be an excellent b/w printer, however in this matter Ansel was the master, easily the best projection printer ever. I say that because Edward Weston was easily the best contact printer ever.

Ansel always tried to create the best negatives for his purposes, but for him the negative was simply a device to create the print that he visualized. His style varied over his career but his prints were always superb. He even did soft focus impressionist style, terrific old buildings, stylistic theatrical type portraits. Many who studied his work, especially when he was mostly doing mountains, felt he did photographs at an "eye level" position, some thought that, especially in earlier times he would hike to the mountains and shoot down into the valleys or across from the higher elevations. Some felt that at his later very best positions he would shoot from a lower position to exaggerate the power of the mountains. Ansel would probably have laughed at those evaluations, especially with a couple of glasses of wine. However is you really love landscapes, these thoughts are worthy of evaluation.

I remember Ansel the pianist before rheumatoid arthritis, and the man who always had a great sense of humor, as well as the great photographer.

Lynn

[Jim Jones]

Real artists like Franz Schubert and Emily Dickenson were commercial failures, but the World is richer for their genius.

[KJ Smith]

OTOH, suppose I took a photo of an old house, as part of my "abandoned ruins" series (we've all done some of those). But the gallery is having a retrospective on local Victorian architecture and wants my print as an example. Would I be selling out by showing that print in a different context than my original intent? Or is the resulting image bigger than my little vision?

I don't see how. It really has little to do with the venue, more to do with your intent.

Maybe I didn't say what I meant very well.

When it gets to the point where you are changing the way you would shoot or print a subject *just* to make it more commercially viable, I think you have crossed the line from "Artist" to "Craftsman".

IMHO, YMMV.